The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1541  
Old 03-11-2023, 07:54 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 8,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1 View Post
Sweden is a very different case and stopped ennobling people in the 1880s. Lili and Archie aren’t being punished for anything, they never grew up having the titles and live in America, a republic so what reason do they need for the titles?
But princes and princesses of the Royal House of Sweden were already given duchies for life only when the King of Sweden could still award hereditary titles of baron and count, see the wording of the Instrument of Government of 1808.

And, again, take the case of Spain, which has a large group of hereditary peers (more than 2,000 title holders, of whom about a little over 400 are Grandees) and, yet, under the Royal Decree 1368/1987, the King grants the right to use "titles of nobility belonging to the Royal Family" only for life and can actually suspend that right at any time, as King Felipe VI did to this sister, Infanta Cristina, formerly Duchess of Palma de Mallorca.
Reply With Quote
  #1542  
Old 03-11-2023, 08:11 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: West Chester, United States
Posts: 308
AmericanObserver7, you posted " B P gave confirmation to a Royal WATCHER (Who ? NOT a REPORTER ?) who then put it on Twitter ( OF ALL PLACES) what their styles is and their titles". That doesn't seem to me the way BP works at all.

I think that the HRH designation for the children is still in negotiations with The Sussex's, who are pushing for it. OR they have been told.... No. The Children aren't getting that.

Otherwise it certainly would have been released when the Sussex's OWN spokesperson announced "Princess Lilibet Diana" Baptism info. Not released as " HRH The Princess Lilibet Diana either ".

Personally, I think they should be VERY grateful the American based Children are getting Prince-Princess Titles anyway. After everything that they have alleged to certainly diminish and demean the Royal Family. Charles could have changed it through new Letters Patent, but he didn't.

Most Americans only hear Prince-Princess and have NO understanding of HRH anyway. And to The Sussex's, the market to profit and prestige for them and the children, IS America. Why not be satisfied with this ?
Why on earth would anyone think this is a punishment ?

Why is it difficult to see that the Children don't have HRH ? Its a new Reign and new, more "progressive" procedures and policies are being put in place. Isnt THAT what the Sussex's claimed they were advocating for anyway ? Now Charles is implementing changes with his own Family.

His brother just became Duke of Edinburgh, but will not have the ability to pass the Dukedom to his Son. It is now a 'life peerage'. New policy in place. Are the now Edinburgh's complaining about that ? Nope, they were obviously so honored and appreciative from the video I watched of them in Edinburgh yesterday.

Is anything ever enough ? Its amazing, they don't live in The UK or work for The Family-Firm, but they want every single vestige of Royalty bestowed on them and their Children.
Reply With Quote
  #1543  
Old 03-11-2023, 08:32 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 8,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granada View Post
AmericanObserver7, you posted " B P gave confirmation to a Royal WATCHER (Who ? NOT a REPORTER ?) who then put it on Twitter ( OF ALL PLACES) what their styles is and their titles". That doesn't seem to me the way BP works at all.

I think that the HRH designation for the children is still in negotiations with The Sussex's, who are pushing for it. OR they have been told.... No. The Children aren't getting that.

Otherwise it certainly would have been released when the Sussex's OWN spokesperson announced "Princess Lilibet Diana" Baptism info. Not released as " HRH The Princess Lilibet Diana either ".

Personally, I think they should be VERY grateful the American based Children are getting Prince-Princess Titles anyway. After everything that they have alleged to certainly diminish and demean the Royal Family. Charles could have changed it through new Letters Patent, but he didn't.

Most Americans only hear Prince-Princess and have NO understanding of HRH anyway. And to The Sussex's, the market to profit and prestige for them and the children, IS America. Why not be satisfied with this ?
Why on earth would anyone think this is a punishment ?

Why is it difficult to see that the Children don't have HRH ? Its a new Reign and new, more "progressive" procedures and policies are being put in place. Isnt THAT what the Sussex's claimed they were advocating for anyway ? Now Charles is implementing changes with his own Family.

His brother just became Duke of Edinburgh, but will not have the ability to pass the Dukedom to his Son. It is now a 'life peerage'. New policy in place. Are the now Edinburgh's complaining about that ? Nope, they were obviously so honored and appreciative from the video I watched of them in Edinburgh yesterday.

Is anything ever enough ? Its amazing, they don't live in The UK or work for The Family-Firm, but they want every single vestige of Royalty bestowed on them and their Children.
I don't think that the children using HRH is being discussed and I am pretty sure that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex understand that their deal not to use HRH after they left the UK extends by implication to the children too.

The discussion on this forum was not so much about whether the children can use HRH in practice, which they cannot, but whether they formally have the style or not. I think they do, as their parents and the Duke of York do too since the HRH style is in fact attached to the Prince/Princess title in the LPs and has never been formally taken from them. I see their not using HRH more like a "gentlemen's agreement". If they broke the agreement though, then more drastic action would probably be taken.
Reply With Quote
  #1544  
Old 03-11-2023, 08:56 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC View Post
Iím more concerned about Harry and his childrenís - no matter their titles- place in the line of succession. With the ways in which Harry has made it crystal clear what he thinks of the institution, is that not grounds to remove him and his children from the line of succession? He is such a hypocrite and it galls me that he is in line to inherit the top role in an institution he has done nothing but deride and try to destroy. It doesnít matter that William and his children are before him. Itís the principle of the the thing for me.
Only parliament can change the line of succession and they will not do that for anything short of treason... or a major crime.
Reply With Quote
  #1545  
Old 03-11-2023, 09:23 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granada View Post
I think that the HRH designation for the children is still in negotiations with The Sussex's, who are pushing for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The discussion on this forum was not so much about whether the children can use HRH in practice, which they cannot, but whether they formally have the style or not. I think they do,[...]
I don't understand what is causing doubts. As far as I can tell, all statements quoted from palace sources have consistently referred to using the HRH:

Statement from Buckingham Palace: "The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family."

Statement from a royal source: "The Duke of York will no longer use the style ĎHis Royal Highnessí in any official capacity."

Statement from a palace source: "The use of the style HRH would come through their [Archie and Lilibet's] father and the Duke of Sussexís HRH is in abeyance."

Some article writers and social media users may have been sloppier with their wording, but they are not official sources.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
How is he rewarding them? If you mean that their children are now known as Prince and Princess, that was the case from the day the queen died. According to the 1917 Letters Patent. Charles was never going to take away those titles from his grandchildren who have done nothing to deserve it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia View Post
Whether we like it or not, those titles were Archie and Lili's to use from 8 September 2022. XeniaCasaraghi argues that Charles shouldn't have allowed them to use their titles because of their parents. To that I ask, why should Archie and Lili be held accountable for the actions of their parents?
Clearly, there are differences of opinion in this thread as to whether it was Charles' original intention that going forward, children of younger sons would no longer be known by royal titles. None of us can know for certain. But if that was his original intention, and he backtracked due to the parents' behavior or allegations, then it would not be inaccurate to say that the parents' behavior or allegations have been rewarded. And if it was always his intention and he had hypothetically followed through on it, then naturally it would not have been any sort of punishment for the children.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC View Post
Iím more concerned about Harry and his childrenís - no matter their titles- place in the line of succession. With the ways in which Harry has made it crystal clear what he thinks of the institution, is that not grounds to remove him and his children from the line of succession? He is such a hypocrite and it galls me that he is in line to inherit the top role in an institution he has done nothing but deride and try to destroy. It doesnít matter that William and his children are before him. Itís the principle of the the thing for me.
I am sure people will point out that German royals and nobles whose countries fought against Britain during World War One or World War Two were allowed to preserve their right to ascend the British throne. But I personally find it absolutely ludicrous that they were. (Though of course, if the British public of 1919 or 1946 truly thought it was acceptable for someone who went to war against their country to become their monarch, then that is their business.)
Reply With Quote
  #1546  
Old 03-11-2023, 09:25 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: West Chester, United States
Posts: 308
I'm in complete agreement with Royalist.in.NC, but I understand that there seems to be no mechanism in place to remove Harry from The Succession.

What I still find so hypocritical and repugnant is the Sussex's now leeching on to prestigious royal tiles for their children.Who are being raised in America after their Parents fled the unbearable pain of being working Royals. And being denied a "progressive new role" in the Monarchy.

Now they are however talking about their children's owed Titles due to ROYAL "birthright". Huh ?

Why? Isn't this the Couple that NAMED a Book detailing their supposedly oppressive and hellish time as Working Royals, and being TRAPPED in " The Institution " ...... called "Finding Freedom" ?

Then have given multiple Interviews, Podcasts and Docu-series to monetize AND publicize their plight. And TWO Books too.
Now they want to saddle their children with the same curse of Titles and Association to a dreadful antiquated Institution ?

It is actually comical and infuriating at the same time. Laughable hypocrisy.

But gotta keep the royal con job and grift going forward at all costs......
Reply With Quote
  #1547  
Old 03-11-2023, 09:40 AM
Royalist.in.NC's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Nowheresville, United States
Posts: 556
QUOTE=Denville;2536851]Only parliament can change the line of succession and they will not do that for anything short of treason... or a major crime.[/QUOTE]


I understand that - but I donít think that makes it right. At all.

I would imagine that those in the UK advocating for the end of the monarchy are thrilled with how the Sussexes are making their job easier.

Hopefully members of the RF will continue to find ways to deal with the continuing grief the Sussexes pile on them. William seemed to rise above it on the walkabout after HMís death. But that was before the book and all of Harryís interviews. I canít help but think of the ďcut directĒ used in Jane Austenís time.

What horrible and hypocritical ďfamily membersĒ these two are!
Reply With Quote
  #1548  
Old 03-11-2023, 09:50 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,401
Why not just ignore them? THey are living in the US, they wont be welcome in the UK again IMO. It doesn't matter what the children are called, they are v unlikely to do more than see their relatives now and again. Parliament certainly doesnt want to get entangled in family rows and will only intervene if there is a major situation,
Reply With Quote
  #1549  
Old 03-11-2023, 09:54 AM
Royalist.in.NC's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Nowheresville, United States
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granada View Post
I'm in complete agreement with Royalist.in.NC, but I understand that there seems to be no mechanism in place to remove Harry from The Succession.

What I still find so hypocritical and repugnant is the Sussex's now leeching on to prestigious royal tiles for their children.Who are being raised in America after their Parents fled the unbearable pain of being working Royals. And being denied a "progressive new role" in the Monarchy.

Now they are however talking about their children's owed Titles due to ROYAL "birthright". Huh ?

Why? Isn't this the Couple that NAMED a Book detailing their supposedly oppressive and hellish time as Working Royals, and being TRAPPED in " The Institution " ...... called "Finding Freedom" ?

Then have given multiple Interviews, Podcasts and Docu-series to monetize AND publicize their plight. And TWO Books too.
Now they want to saddle their children with the same curse of Titles and Association to a dreadful antiquated Institution ?

It is actually comical and infuriating at the same time. Laughable hypocrisy.

But gotta keep the royal con job and grift going forward at all costs......
I absolutely agree with everything in your excellent post - thanks!

Yes, infuriating is the word I was looking for! The hypocrisy absolutely infuriates me! If I were a family member, I cannot imagine being in the same room with them!

But Iím an American and we donít have a line of succession. I would like to know what the British posters think about all of this. Has there been any talk to do something about removing them or does the average person not really care?
Reply With Quote
  #1550  
Old 03-11-2023, 09:58 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,401
People do not care. They are not all that close to the top of the line of succession, they are in teh US. People in the UK dont take as much interest in the RF as outside people seem to imagine
Reply With Quote
  #1551  
Old 03-11-2023, 10:04 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Washington DC, United States
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1 View Post
Sweden is a very different case and stopped ennobling people in the 1880s. Lili and Archie aren’t being punished for anything, they never grew up having the titles and live in America, a republic so what reason do they need for the titles?
What do you mean? Archie and Lilibet are still little kids. So, they will grow with their titles. They don't need titles. It's their birthright!!

You all can debate this all you want but it's done, the titles and style are in place. They were in place when the Queen passed way.
Reply With Quote
  #1552  
Old 03-11-2023, 10:06 AM
Royalist.in.NC's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Nowheresville, United States
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
People do not care. They are not all that close to the top of the line of succession, they are in teh US. People in the UK dont take as much interest in the RF as outside people seem to imagine
Thanks for your insights
Reply With Quote
  #1553  
Old 03-11-2023, 10:14 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
What do you mean? Archie and Lilibet are still little kids. So, they will grow with their titles. They don't need titles. It's their birthright!!

You all can debate this all you want but it's done, the titles and style are in place. They were in place when the Queen passed way.
True but given that the couple had decided not to use the titles that the children were able to use, such as Earl of Dumbarton and Lady Lilibet, it seems odd that they are so attached ot the Prince and Princess titles. They could have chosen to do what Ed and SOphie did, and just used Master and Miss or lord D and Lady Lili. Esp when theyve claimed not to want to be part of the royal insitutuion and spoken about Genetic pain.
Reply With Quote
  #1554  
Old 03-11-2023, 10:22 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC View Post

But Iím an American and we donít have a line of succession. I would like to know what the British posters think about all of this. Has there been any talk to do something about removing them or does the average person not really care?
I couldn't speak for the rest of the country and there's no evidence currently of how much the average person cares about the succession order. However, the polls do show that the Sussexes are unpopular here so if there were surveys on their place in the LoS, I suspect there would be a majority in favour of dropping them down (or off).

The crucial question would be "If the current top four weren't there, would the public accept King Henry and Queen Meghan?" I'd put money on the answer being overwhelmingly "NO".
Reply With Quote
  #1555  
Old 03-11-2023, 10:32 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,401
well if William and his children did not exist, then Harry would have been the heir and as such, his leaving would have been a much bigger deal. Perhaps he might not have wanted to leave, if he were the only son. Or if he had chosen to leave, while his father was still POW, he might have been pressured to give up his place in the succession as he would be the future King. If God forbid anything did happen to WIll and his family, I think that given that H has gone to the US, and is settling there, he would be more or less ordered to give up his place and he and his children would be removed from the line, and next in line would be Andrew. SO then, I guess you would also have Andrew having to give up HIS place.. and it would be Beatrice who was next in line.
Reply With Quote
  #1556  
Old 03-11-2023, 10:35 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC View Post
But Iím an American and we donít have a line of succession. I would like to know what the British posters think about all of this. Has there been any talk to do something about removing them or does the average person not really care?
The Sussexes are extremely unpopular in the UK, but they have been pushed down the line of succession and the chances of any of them actually becoming monarch are remote ... although I do wish that the Waleses wouldn't all travel together. So I don't think people are that bothered about it.

As for people who were on the German side during the world wars, they were way down the line of succession and I doubt that anyone gave them a second thought.
Reply With Quote
  #1557  
Old 03-11-2023, 10:36 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
I couldn't speak for the rest of the country and there's no evidence currently of how much the average person cares about the succession order. However, the polls do show that the Sussexes are unpopular here so if there were surveys on their place in the LoS, I suspect there would be a majority in favour of dropping them down (or off).

The crucial question would be "If the current top four weren't there, would the public accept King Henry and Queen Meghan?" I'd put money on the answer being overwhelmingly "NO".
I would agree, there is no mileage in removing them, if they are that bothered they should remove themselves, but we know they will not do that.

Their place is lip service only IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #1558  
Old 03-11-2023, 10:48 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
The Sussexes are extremely unpopular in the UK, but they have been pushed down the line of succession and the chances of any of them actually becoming monarch are remote ... although I do wish that the Waleses wouldn't all travel together. So I don't think people are that bothered about it.

As for people who were on the German side during the world wars, they were way down the line of succession and I doubt that anyone gave them a second thought.
well yes the German dukes etc were well down the line and the chances of them succeeding was pretty much zero. In a while, Will's chidlren will be having kids too, and Harry will go down further.
Reply With Quote
  #1559  
Old 03-11-2023, 11:20 AM
Royalist.in.NC's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Nowheresville, United States
Posts: 556
Thanks to the British posters! My vote would be for Anne and Edward but I know thatís not how it works
Reply With Quote
  #1560  
Old 03-11-2023, 11:49 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,378
I think everyone would prefer Anne or Edward to Harry or Andrew, but cutting people out of the line of succession is complicated and can't really be done on grounds of unpopularity. Which is possibly a bit of a shame, but so it is!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 20 (5 members and 15 guests)
EllieCat, melanie.logie, Prinsara, Queen Claude, QueenJen
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 6: Aug. 2021- Oct. 2022 JessRulz The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 2014 10-06-2022 12:16 PM
Princess Stephanie Current Events 1 : Oct.2002 - Oct.2004 Tisha Current Events Archive 266 10-03-2004 11:42 AM




Popular Tags
#princedubai #rashidmrm abdullah ii africa all tags america arcadie arcadie claret british caroline charles iii claret current events danish royal family death defunct thrones denmark edward vii elizabeth ii emperor naruhito empress masako fabio bevilacqua fallen kingdom garsenda genealogy general news grimaldi hamdan bin ahmed history hobbies hollywood hotel room for sale identifying introduction jewels jordan royal family king king charles king philippe king willem-alexander leopold ier matrilineal monarchy need help new zealand; cyclone gabrielle official visit order of the redeemer pamela hicks portugal preferences prince albert monaco prince christian queen alexandra queen camilla queen elizabeth ii queen margrethe ii queen mathilde queen maxima republics restoration royal wedding royal without thrones silk spain spanish royal family state visit to france state visit to germany switzerland william woven


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:22 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2023
Jelsoft Enterprises